Delhi Court May 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 25 of about 254 results (0.020 seconds)Vimal Moulders (India) Limited Vs. Commr. of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT517TriDel
1. The appellants had taken Modvat credit on inputs on the strength of dealers' invoices dated 19-9-1997 and 7-10-1997, which were invoices generated through computer. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise disallowed the credit so taken, on the ground that the invoices did not bear the pre-printed serial numbers as required by certain trade notices of the Delhi Commissionerate of Central Excise.The Assistant Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,000/- on the party for alleged contravention of the requirements of the said trade notices read with Sub-rules 4 and 6 of Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), however, allowed the above credit holding that such credit could not be denied on account of such technical violation of procedural requirements. The lower appellate authority, however, upheld the order of penalty for violation of procedural requirement under Trade Notice No. 77 dated 12-9-1997 of the Delhi Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Sanwah Micro System Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC236
1. The issue involved in these appeals is whether Fax machines could be imported under Additional Licences during Import Policy period 1988-1991. The matter has come" before us on reference by the South Regional Bench. That Bench was of the opinion that Additional Licences in these cases were not valid for import of Fax machines as the conditions on the licences were not deleted, even though the East Regional Bench had taken a contrary view in the case of R.D.Electronics v. C.C.E., 2 Shri J.C. Patel ld. Counsel relied upon the decision in the case of East India Commercial Co. Ltd. (para 33) 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1342 (S.C.) and Lokesh Chemicals, 1981 (8) E.L.T. 235 (Bom.) (para 33 onwards) and submitted that Import Policy provisions do not have any statutory force and non deletion of the conditions of the licence will not make any difference as description of the item on the licence was specific to cover the imports and the function of the Custom House is to find whether the goods are cove...
Tag this Judgment!Electronics Services Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC471
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Electronics Services is whether they are manufacturing Fire Alarm System falling under heading No. 85.31 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, so as to include the cost of bought out item supplied directly to site and installation and commissioning charges.2.1 Shri V.S. Sejpal, learned Chartered Accountant, submitted that the appellants manufacture fire alarm panels, repeater panels, hooters, pill boxes, response indicators, etc.; that as their clearances were well within the exemption limit as provided under Notification No.175/86, they were filing the declarations with the Department; that the Appellants were entering into 4 types of contract - (i) Contract for supply of material only for fire alarm system or burglar alarm system; (ii) Contract for supply of material and testing/commissioning of fire/burglar alarm system; (iii) Contract for supply of materials along with installations and erection of the system and testi...
Tag this Judgment!Hughes Escorts Communications Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC326
1. The facts of the case are that the appellants herein, entered into a licence agreement with the Department of Telecommunication in August 1994 to establish, maintain and operate closed user group domestic 64 kbps Data Network via INSAT Satellite system and have been providing Satellite Communication Service through VSAT (Very Small Aperture Terminal) from February 1995. The Department of Telecommunication has licensed the appellants to provide the electronic link through satellite media to the user organisations for inter-connecting only offices for the purpose of transferring electronic data between the locations. The electronic link is provided with the help of an earth station (called Hub) located at Gurgaon DOT has provided the appellants the satellite space on rental basis to provide the link to the user organisation. In addition to transmission of data through satellite, the appellants also provide the facility to transmit data through fascimile. However, since fax machines w...
Tag this Judgment!Sear Cargo Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT960TriDel
1. The appellants are licensed Custom House agents. They filed a Bill of Entry dated 27-11-1999 on behalf of M/s. Escorts Limited (hereinafter referred to as the importers) for clearance of certain goods imported by the importers declaring the goods as "Software for making our MTS system Y2K compliance" for the benefit of Notification No. 20/99-Cus., dated 28-2-1999. On physical examination of the goods conducted subsequently by the customs personnel, it was found that the goods were computer hardware along with certain software. On finding that the impugned goods were, by and large, different from the goods declared by the importers, Custom House seized them under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The appraising group of Customs Commissionerate assessed the total assessable value of the goods at Rs. 13,53,200/- and determined the total customs duty payable thereon at Rs. 5,23,800/-.The importers, in their statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, waived show-cause notice and pray...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Essee Courier Vs. Sushil Kumar Sharma and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)184; 2000(56)DRJ129; [2000(87)FLR1017]
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition in which he challenges the award as well as making of reference order dated 11.1.1993 whereby Secretary, Labour made the reference. 'Whether Shri Sushil Sharma has abandoned his services or his services have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?' It was mentioned in the reference order that the dispute was between management of 'M/s Essee Courier (formerly known as M/s Saico Enterprises and Co.), LB-35, Tolstoy Marg, 17 Tolstoy Marg New Delhi-1, and its workman Shri Sushil Sharma C/o Mazdoor Vikas Morcha, 100 Foot a Road, 28/15-F, Chhajjur Colony, Indra Marg, Shahdara, Delhi.'2. After the receipt of the reference order, notices were issued by the Labour Court and it was duly received by the petitioner M/s Essee Courier as well. Petitioner filed the written statement. Thereafter, it stopped appearing. Ultimat...
Tag this Judgment!Agro Engineering Products Delhi Private Limited Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)213; (2000)162CTR(Del)42; [2000]244ITR56(Delhi)
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 276-C of the Income Tax Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the petition are that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 276-C of the Income Tax Act against the petitioner on the allegations that the petitioner company had filed falls return, of its income for the assessment year 1985-86 and had concealed considerable income which otherwise belongs to it. By the agreement dated 2.4.1984, the petitioner company entered into contract with M/s. Taj Services Ltd., to complete a project of silo-cum-poultry in Tanro, Haryana on turn-key basis for consideration of Rs. 24,65,000/-. On scrutiny of the Income Tax return filed by the petitioner company for the assessment year 1985-86, it was found by the Assessing Officer that the petitioner company had wrongfully debited an expenditure of Rs. 1,44,608/- towards purchase o...
Tag this Judgment!Virender Kumar and Others Vs. Presiding Officer and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR474]
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. RuleSince short question is involved in the matter, the matter is taken up with consent of the parties and finally disposed of at this stage. 2. Petitioners who are four in number had raised industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication by Secretary (Labour) Government of NCT of Delhi on 5.11.93. Although both the parties, namely petitioners and respondent no.3 appeared before the Industrial Tribunal where the matter was being adjudicated. On 4th September, 1995 as nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioners, Industrial Tribunal proceeded ex-parte and passed ex-parte award. Thereafter, petitioners filed application for setting aside ex-parte award which was dismissed by impugned order dated 6th February, 1996 holding that there was no sufficient cause for non-appearance by any of the four petitioners or their representative on the date when the award was passed. 3. Case of the petitioners in the application for setting aside ex-parte award was that when ...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Ram Vs. Amar Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)856
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J. 1. Defendants have filed this application under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for incorporating the following prayer clause at the foot of para NO. 17 of the written statement:- 'A decree be passed against the Plaintiff whereby declaring that the alleged cancellation of power of attorney is wholly illegal and contrary to law. Be further ordered that the cancellation is of no effect and the original power of attorney executed by the Plaintiff in favor of the Defendant No. 3 is still valid and can be acted upon as per its construction.'Consequential amendments have also been sought in the title and para No. 16 of the written statement. 2. Plaintiff has contested the application by filing a reply. The two grounds on which the amendments sought are opposed are that the same is barred by limitation and that in suit No. 1505/84 which defendants 1 & 2 have filed against the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 9th August, 1978, th...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Kusum Pahalajani and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ133; [2000(86)FLR350]
A.K.Sikri, J. 1. Rule.2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and disposal at this stage.3. Respondent No. 1 was employed as stenographer with the petitioner/DTC. He . was served with charge-sheet and enquiry was held as a result of which he was removed from service vide order dated 30th September, 1991. Petitioner moved an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 30th September, 1991 itself seeking approval of the action of the petitioner in removing respondent No. 2 from service.4. The matter was at the stage of evidence of the petitioner and as witness had not come on 19th March, 1996, costs of Rs. 150/- was imposed upon the petitioner and the matter was adjourned to 25th October,1996 for the evidence of the petitioner. On 25th October, 1996, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was not in a position to pay the costs imposed on 19th March, 1996 and requested for extension of time for making payment of costs w...
Tag this Judgment!